I'm expecting the breakout to happen soon. Meaning that we will break $5.4 - $5.5 and then test $7.2 fairly soon after that. Breakout downwards would be very counter-intuitive taking into account that Bitcoin has had the biggest news coverage in over 6 months. And that coverage has been overall fairly positive I believe.
However I've seen the market do some counter-intuitive stuff before, so anything is possible. We'll have to wait and see.
Thanks Technomage, you continue to be the worst speculator ever. |
|
|
|
Not surprised. I'm staying the fuck away from this. Sharks are out for blood and bitcoins.
Exactly. Have a look at https://bitcoinica.com/pages/interest and see -0.1 for shorts, the lowest it’s ever been. Some Wall St. sharks are trying to depress the price (probably them who set the wall up in the first place) to accumulate hard is what I suspect. |
|
|
|
What a surprise  . Too bad the previous correction never got a chance to finish, it may have gone lower but it would likely be rallying by now. I’m not going to trade this. I don’t care if it goes back to the 3s. |
|
|
|
what is all that security worth if any company can default at will without getting into any trouble? there is not much you can do against somebody saying their wallet has been stolen.
Isn’t this what verification is trying to combat, so they cannot stay anonymous? If they say their wallet was stolen, it’s their fault for lax security and have to cover it obviously. That’s why people should invest only with operators they actually trust. |
|
|
|
So, you trust Bitcoinica, which offers 10:1 leverage for anonymous accounts (guarantee to go in big BTC debt eventually) and had multiple break-ins, but will not trust GLBSE which was never broken in before and which has been running for longer? If GLBSE gets hacked and covers its losses once, then you will begin to trust it? EDIT: and in general, have you seen that most e-wallets are secure enough to trust in the first place? Money to trade is risked money in the first place.
What do you think do E-Wallets have that GLBSE is missing? Please tell me more. Your risk evaluation has certainly been comedic so far.  |
|
|
|
I was unable to increase my bid wall because my account was locked. Is this my fault or Nefarios?
I also said in the thread contact me if you want to sell back a large amount and I will place a bid wall. He never contacted me.
I'm interested to see what people think I should do here and why. I think this will be a very fun thread.
In my view, it was yours, because you caused the whole public drama in the first place which led to the selling and refused to cooperate with Nefario (simple ID), so you valued your pride higher than your shareholders. It was right to lock your account if it’s true there were hundreds of login attempts. But I’m going to refrain from commenting further on this case. It’s clear enough at this point for everyone to take his stance based on what happened. |
|
|
|
|
Interesting.
I wonder if you demand the same from exchanges such as MtGox, or perhaps E-Wallets? Do they have to have insurance on their hundreds of thousands of BTC as well for you to use them?
|
|
|
|
I'm neutral. I haven't made any trades in a few weeks. I'm proud of myself (me, not that other guy myself). Same here, soon to be one whole month now. I say fuck this market and its false signals. |
|
|
|
He's right though, it isn't looking good short term.
Why? Looking pretty neutral to me. You're forgetting that neutral usually means down. Maybe. You going bearish again?  |
|
|
|
He's right though, it isn't looking good short term.
Why? Looking pretty neutral to me. |
|
|
|
I know right? He is just scared for his bottom line, and his soon-to-become useless GPUs Hey, the GPU I mined with a year ago and that paid off itself works just fine for gaming. Can’t do that with ASICs. |
|
|
|
I see no violation of the terms. And can hardly believe Goat is still not complying. It clearly states "We may at our discretion, ask asset creators to provide proof of identity, address, phone number and more, until we are sufficiently satisfied. Said information will be held securely offline and not shared with any third party. We reserve the right to freeze trading of the asset and the asset creators account for failure to provide requested details or in the event of suspected fraud." He hasn’t failed yet or been suspected to be a fraudster by Nefario, has he? So what exactly is the problem?  Because the term were changed less than a month and most likely weren't communicated to customers. He can change terms tomorrow at his will. "These terms and conditions are subject to change without notice." You have agreed to that too. |
|
|
|
I see no violation of the terms. And can hardly believe Goat is still not complying. If I was a shareholder, my trust in him would be low now too. It clearly states "We may at our discretion, ask asset creators to provide proof of identity, address, phone number and more, until we are sufficiently satisfied. Said information will be held securely offline and not shared with any third party. We reserve the right to freeze trading of the asset and the asset creators account for failure to provide requested details or in the event of suspected fraud." He hasn’t failed yet or been suspected to be a fraudster by Nefario, has he? So what exactly is the problem? |
|
|
|
"My" final words? These are not even yours. It’s taken out of Might is Right. Oh wait, wasn’t one of your pseudonyms Ragnar?  So, why do you not pay tribute to him? Truly, you are a parasite. |
|
|
|
His information is known...
He shouldn't have suddenly closed your account, I agree. What is the issue with you handing over a bit of info though? You don't have a problem posting a picture of yourself publicly. A verified email, name and address isn't so bad.
What is he going to do with my passport? I do not know his policy. He has not made it public! He has no terms of service! Looks like ToS to me: https://glbse.com/terms"We may at our discretion, ask asset creators to provide proof of identity, address, phone number and more, until we are sufficiently satisfied. Said information will be held securely offline and not shared with any third party. We reserve the right to freeze trading of the asset and the asset creators account for failure to provide requested details or in the event of suspected fraud." "By using GLBSE and any service it provides you agree to these terms and conditions." |
|
|
|
Atlas makes it way too easy for people to fuck with him. This is sure to be entertaining.
He still has not answered my question. I will take that as a YES. Yes, Atlas has no life experience. Yes, Atlas is a lazy, spoiled brat. Yes, Atlas is not likely someone I would even consider human. |
|
|
|
Much more concerning is the question whether GLBSE now has any exploitable vulnerabilities etc., I would really like to see Patrick Strateman (from Intersango, where Nefario works too) do some penetration testing like he did with other exchanges if it hasn’t yet happened.
once your email account is pwned you have a attack vector that bypasses glbse Do you know how many people lost their private key and could not prove that their account was theirs on GLBSE? I’ve told Nefario from the start that private keys are a bad idea because people cannot and will not secure them, and it actually decreases usability. He himself had a hardcore stance like you did, but he became convinced otherwise and so he built GLBSE 2.0. Now compare the popularity of nick/pw GLBSE 2.0 with the private key original GLBSE. |
|
|
|
OK, I agree that it is an issue in the sense that you should have been able to adjust prior, and people should be able to change their e-mail adress now with their GLBSE password. But this is not an issue that has to do with whether GLBSE is safe but if your email account you registered with is safe … One of the only reasons why I'm trading with ~10 BTC over there, rather than 100+
I'd really like this to get fixed/improved, as I'd love to learn more about trading shares and bonds (just trying things out atm).
How was the security done on GLBSE 1.0 that you needed psychical access to your computer?
And why wasn't this implemented in version 2.0?
How can you expect "this" to be fixed when you don’t even know what should be done about it? The first version of GLBSE used a long string representing your private key in addition to your password which you stored on your computer. You can do the exact same thing today and store both your email password and GLBSE password encrypted on your computer – no difference. And the reason it got changed is that noone used GLBSE due to it, because it severely cut into usability. GLBSE 2.0 is way more popular now. The only thing that can be done is add multifactor authentication, and it definitely should be done. And yes, EDIT YOUR PREVIOUS POST NOW. I reported it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
